Familypedia:Requests for adminship
This page is to discuss nominations for adminship. Currently only a handful of active genealogists are here. Anyone who would like to be given the extra facility that goes with being a sysop or bureaucrat may nominate themselves or another contributor. See the "ideal" procedural details on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. I guess one necessary rule would be for only logged in users being able to vote. ''User:IFaqeer—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:26, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC) Archive for previous nominations: Genealogy:Requests for adminship/Archive To nominate yourself or someone else use the following near the bottom of the page, before the categories. (User:NAME) Consent: '' Supporting Neutral Opposing Applications Nomination for Adminship: Rtol I nominate (User:Rtol) for admin rights. It will be easier to work for him if he should be an admin sysop. Currently he is the most active genealogy and site-improving contributor.--Fred Bergman 09:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC) *'Questions': Has Rtol accepted this nomination? It's a requirement on Wikipedia's RfA (see here) for nominees to first accept their nomination and I think it makes sense Wiki-wide. For instance, I know some people who don't want to be entrusted with the responsibility. Also, does Rtol really feel his/her work would be "easier" with admin tools? If so, why? —DeGraffJE'' talk 11:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Consent: '' Supporting *Fred Bergman 09:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC) '''If we want a good working and attractive dutch community to this site, it will be necessary to have a dutch admin and in my opinion no one is better for that purpose than Richard Tol. It is not his ambition to be important but it is a fact that he is important for this site and for the grow of a dutch community at this site !'-- Fred Bergman 08:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC) *— Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Neutral * If he actually wants to be an admin, I would change to support. William Allen Shade 18:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC) * I never walk away from responsibility, but I do not really have the time. The only advantage of adminship is that I could delete the pages I create by accident. rtol 07:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Opposing *(changed vote from support) DeGraffJE's point has merit. Although our process today more resembles that of WP when it first started, it is reasonable to expect a statement of acceptance of nomination, and a statement covering the items DeGraffJE enumerated. I remain positive about Rtol's contributions here but should not assume what justification Rtol has in mind or if he even desires this responsibility and accepts the constraints that go along with it. 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC) *:My oppose is firmed up given Rtol's neutrality. Only those who actively want to be (and desire continuing to be) an admin, should be an admin. By extension, the same goes for all positions. We should probably retire IFaqueer and WWillis's status unless they intend to take an active part in bureaucrat duties. They can always be reinstated when they want to resume work here. 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC) ::*I agree with you comments regarding inactive bureaucrats; however, removing those rights from IF and WW would only leave one remaining (Robin). There should probably always be at least two. If you're up to the task, I suggest you propose to be a bureaucrat...you're qualified and active. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 18:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC) ---- Request for Adminship: DeGraffJE The following are couple reasons why I request your consideration for adminship: # Wiki-knowledeable. I'm a top 30 editor here (with more edits than two current admins), am an Experienced & Established Editor on the English Wikipedia, and know how to use sysop tools, having served as an admin on two private wikis. I have spearheaded archival methods here and am knowledgeable with templates and intricate wiki syntax. # Apt to serve. I will help keep the wiki clutter-free and BLP-sound by assuaging issues on CfD (which has grown from 40 to almost 100 issues over the past couple months), by addressing issues on Forum:Administrators' noticeboard, and by helping to edit the wiki interface when consensus dictates. I will also use the rollback privileges to help counter vandalism and to restore material removed through improper edits. I believe my edits thus far attest to my abilities and demeanor, and I feel that access to the admin tools will enable me to improve the 'pedia and aid other editors beyond work concerning articles of personal interest. Thank you for your consideration. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 19:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Questions: *You cite your status as an experienced and established WP editor but I did not see a link to your WP:User page. Would that be possible? ::Sure...see here. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 00:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC) *You state your interest in Living People articles. Some genealogy sites only allow superficial information for individuals born during the last 100 years. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is an article created by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Using this concrete example, how do you think Familypedia's practice should diverge from Wikipedia's policies on living people? In general, do you think Familypedia should take a hard line or adopt no fixed policy and deal with it on a case by case basis? :*Say User:I'm the real Richard Norton shows up and demands that all the information in the article be taken down. How do we really know our Richard is the real Richard? :::Whether or not it is the real Richard is a moot point, although I would work conscientiously and sympathetically to address his concerns, as BLP issues can be serious. Per Wikia policy and Wikipedia precedent, I would evaluate whether or not the information in the article is supported by high-quality references and written conservatively with regard for the subject's privacy, and then I would make a decision. Controversial material would also be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 01:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :*User:Billy Bob Norton gives information on himself but Richard doubts the user is the real Billy Bob related to Richard. Richard recuses himself from blocking Billy Bob due to his personal connection to the controversy. Do we go with people we trust? Richard has a long history here as well as at WP, so maybe this case is a simple call. But what if the contributors each have only a few hundred edits? How do we know who to trust? Do we take a vote, or err on the side of caution and expunge information for any article on a living person over which there is any objection? :::Issues like this need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and not be haphazardly decided per edit counts (even experienced editors make mistakes and have lapses in judgment) or just because the issue concerns a living person. The burden of proof rests with the person who adds or restores material; an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all content policies and guidelines. No vote is needed, but the admin should conduct an investigation and make an informed, methodical decision. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 01:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC) *Oftentimes there is no consensus between competing points of view on ancestors for which there is little hard evidence. Say 3RR is violated and an article or series of articles gets locked. After 2 weeks there is no consensus (indeed some of these disputes have gone on for hundreds of years). What action does the admin take? Perpetual lock? Relax definition of consensus (eg:Act based on simple majority vote)? ::After the two-week cooling off period, I would probably unlock the article and offer some coaching on the talk page. I would encourage those involved to discuss things on the talk page before making controversial edits and to seek reliable sources, with the caveat that some records were either recorded incorrectly or the ancestor lied (e.g., ancestor lied about age, name, or country of origin in order to remain in a country, enlist in the military, etc.). I would explain that multiple hypotheses can coexist on an article in cases where consensus cannot be established. After coaching, further article or editor blocks may be required. As a holistic remedy, I might also refer the editors to Mediation. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 01:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC) - 23:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Consent: '' Supporting *Short but promising history on this wiki. rtol 20:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC) **DeGraffJE kept her cool after being attacked over a change in interpunction. rtol 05:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Neutral * I have read the arguments here. I have no idea what is going on but sounds rather personal. I am also confused why Fred is so adamant about not allowing DeGraff to be an admin since Fred said he was leaving the WIKI, I personally will support whatever Robin's opinion is on this one. - William Allen Shade 14:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC) :::There is nothing personal from my side to deGraff, but I noticed his pretentions and his failures and I could not find his good apprecation else. I want the best for Familypedia ! but for my genealogic records it is not workable. So I stay here just for pleasure but not for my genealogics. Every time I have to wait to long for saving I stop. Sometimes later I try again, but this moment I see Familypedia becoming slower and slower. Perhaps is that because of the improvements Phlox and Rtol are implementing and will the site be faster and better afterwards. In the meantime are my contributions only a few.-- Fred Bergman 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Opposing I don't want a person who hides his knowledge of languages and has not yet proven here his capabilities.-- Fred Bergman 21:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC) :I hope this isn't some kind of retaliation for my altruistic inquiry into your nomination above. For the record, I speak English, Spanish, and Portuguese; however, per WP:UP, users are not ''required to disclose babel on their userpages. The policy states, "Many users include mentions of the languages they know," but it is never required. If the consensus on this wiki changes otherwise, I am happy to comply, but this seems a red herring objection to my nomination. And my knowledge of this policy, humbly speaking, is further evidence of my "capabilities." I would invite you to also review WP:UP#OWN (as I have re-reviewed) regarding etiquette in editing other editors' userpages. Kind regards —''DeGraffJE'' talk 02:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC) :*Please adding a "Babel" template to your user page, so that others know which languages you are comfortable reading. The site is basically in English but there is no prohibition on other languages and we have ways of linking to translations. You're invited to add your name to a category for your country - see Category:Contributors and create a category if yours is not there-- Fred Bergman 11:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC) :::This isn't a big deal in real life, so I've gone ahead and added the babel and country of origin info. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 13:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC) *I persist and continue my negative vote, it isn't a "red herring", but I'm afraid he is a manipulator, because he changed also my text in such way that the essence is disappearing. It is my opinion that he has first to proof his qualities here. His contributions here are more private than in favour of the working of the site. He can also do a lot of work without being an administrator.-- Fred Bergman 14:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC) *If you read User talk:DeGraffJE/Archive 1 I cannot believe that anybody wants him now to be an administrator.-- Fred Bergman 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ::Your comments are bordering WP:PA, all over a babel box, which I've already accomodatingly added. I'm hoping others will weigh in soon and address the matter at hand. (And I would fix your indent formatting again in order to adhere to WP:TP, but I fear being called a "manipulator" again.) —''DeGraffJE'' talk 17:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC) :::I have said what I had to say. after this I say nothing about this. Others will be smart enough to take their own decisions, especially after seeing in history here the manipulation of my answer by deGraff -- Fred Bergman 17:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Adminship